Thomas Andrews12/5/08 EDU 498: Literacy Learning as Social PracticeL. Tinelli Critical Commentary: Changing Practices Quotes: Lankshear and Knobel: “This kind of expertise and competence is developed in performance and not through absorbing content.It is best acquired in contexts where people are enacting meaningful purposes within authentic and collaborative settings…” (pg. 176.) “In working with this group…[they] were committed to collaboratively designing a programme that was able to respond to their (the boys’) personal needs as well as their literacy skills.” (pg. 186) Larson & Marsh: “They worried that their students specifically would be further marginalized by not having access to the kinds of technology and practices needed and that their own lack of expertise was a serious block to such access.One teacher expressed frustration that the NCLB model is so small and so restrictive that they have no choice but to do what is required and no time to look for something more meaningful.” (pg. 145) “Popular culture, therefore, became “unthinkable” and its use in the curriculum simply not considered most of the time.” (pg. 152) Shannon: “[She] had assumed higher scores indicated that the district program had been successful.Her original grant proposal sought the state to acknowledge its progress over the last five years.” (pg. 177) “In order to overcome the achievement gap, they argued, teachers must be held accountable for their deployment of the appropriate technology.” (pg. 179) Discussion: The first quote from Shannon’s book is very disturbing to me.It implies that even schools that improve are still subject to sanctions thanks to NCLB.Clearly, changes need to be made-but at what level, and how?One way of looking at the “players” in the educational system is dividing it up into three symbiotic branches-each influencing and being influenced by the others.One branch consists of students, and their family unit.The second branch is comprised of teachers, and their auxiliary and support staffs.Finally, administrators, school boards, and the government make up the third branch.Changes seem to need to be made in all three branches, if students are to be successful adults.While each branch can exert control over the other two branches, government, and administrative regulations seem to have disproportionate influence on how a) teachers and staff structure their day and teach their classes and b) how students interact with school in general, and specific classes in particular. When we consider changing practices, I think it’s important to acknowledge that change needs to come in all three areas.It appears that NCLB needs to be scrapped, or at least seriously revised.This being said, are teachers and other staff equipped to effectively teach students in the 21st century, especially with regards to technology?Finally, what can students bring to the table that they aren’t already and how do their families fit into the equation? Questions: Government and Administrative Changes in Practice: How can things be changed “from the top down” to improve student output and results?What exactly is the goal they are striving for? Teacher/Staff Changes in Practice:How can it be ensured that teachers have adequate technology skills to be successful in the 21st century?What other skills might be needed that weren’t before?What “old” skills are still imperative to education? Student/Family Changes in Practice:What can students bring to the classroom that is traditionally marginalized?How can families prepare their kids to be successful in school, and in what way can the other “branches” of education be of help in these matters?
EDU 498: Literacy Learning as Social Practice L. Tinelli
Critical Commentary: Changing Practices
Quotes:
Lankshear and Knobel: “This kind of expertise and competence is developed in performance and not through absorbing content. It is best acquired in contexts where people are enacting meaningful purposes within authentic and collaborative settings…” (pg. 176.)
“In working with this group…[they] were committed to collaboratively designing a programme that was able to respond to their (the boys’) personal needs as well as their literacy skills.” (pg. 186)
Larson & Marsh: “They worried that their students specifically would be further marginalized by not having access to the kinds of technology and practices needed and that their own lack of expertise was a serious block to such access. One teacher expressed frustration that the NCLB model is so small and so restrictive that they have no choice but to do what is required and no time to look for something more meaningful.” (pg. 145)
“Popular culture, therefore, became “unthinkable” and its use in the curriculum simply not considered most of the time.” (pg. 152)
Shannon: “[She] had assumed higher scores indicated that the district program had been successful. Her original grant proposal sought the state to acknowledge its progress over the last five years.” (pg. 177)
“In order to overcome the achievement gap, they argued, teachers must be held accountable for their deployment of the appropriate technology.” (pg. 179)
Discussion:
The first quote from Shannon’s book is very disturbing to me. It implies that even schools that improve are still subject to sanctions thanks to NCLB. Clearly, changes need to be made-but at what level, and how? One way of looking at the “players” in the educational system is dividing it up into three symbiotic branches-each influencing and being influenced by the others. One branch consists of students, and their family unit. The second branch is comprised of teachers, and their auxiliary and support staffs. Finally, administrators, school boards, and the government make up the third branch. Changes seem to need to be made in all three branches, if students are to be successful adults. While each branch can exert control over the other two branches, government, and administrative regulations seem to have disproportionate influence on how a) teachers and staff structure their day and teach their classes and b) how students interact with school in general, and specific classes in particular. When we consider changing practices, I think it’s important to acknowledge that change needs to come in all three areas. It appears that NCLB needs to be scrapped, or at least seriously revised. This being said, are teachers and other staff equipped to effectively teach students in the 21st century, especially with regards to technology? Finally, what can students bring to the table that they aren’t already and how do their families fit into the equation?
Questions:
Government and Administrative Changes in Practice: How can things be changed “from the top down” to improve student output and results? What exactly is the goal they are striving for?
Teacher/Staff Changes in Practice: How can it be ensured that teachers have adequate technology skills to be successful in the 21st century? What other skills might be needed that weren’t before? What “old” skills are still imperative to education?
Student/Family Changes in Practice: What can students bring to the classroom that is traditionally marginalized? How can families prepare their kids to be successful in school, and in what way can the other “branches” of education be of help in these matters?